Ugh, no kidding.
Yeah, seriously. In the space of one weekend I’m suddenly looking at guys like Frazier and The Mouch with something akin to actual respect as they speak out against hate, Bannon and Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the issue. This is crazy town!
Bannon doesn’t “tolerate” white nationalism. He advocates it.
…while sucking his own cock.
Sure, but the mere idea that we have someone as reprehensible as Scaramucci calling out one of the most powerful men in the Trump inner circle as, at the very least, closely tied to white nationalists is simply mind-boggling given that we’re talking about The White House.
We can talk about Steve Bannon being a fucking Nazi all day long, but we’re liberals. Here you have a White House insider all but outing Bannon as a white nationalist. If that’s not grounds for Bannon’s termination, nothing ever will be.
This was known going in. Why would it make any difference now?
Because going in it was shrugged off by Republicans as Liberal Media making a bigger deal of it than it was. Now, you have multiple people on the inside saying the same thing, and a changing of the guard around Trump to people hopefully less tolerant of such optics, especially in light of recent events. All that adds up to the best chances yet that Bannon, Miller and Gorka will get the boot.
I can pretty much guaranty that Bannon had ZERO input on Trump’s speech today. No way he would have written or signed off on something that so distanced Trump from that base.
On the other hand, Overton Window. We’re at the point where “not literally a Nazi” is the low water-mark for respectability.
I have one (1) right-wing friend in Facebook. I served with him in the Navy. Other than being a right-wing wonk, he’s a lot like me; loves the same movies, kinds of games, old cardboard-pusher from way back, etc.
It is amazing reading the alt-right side of things. They are literally arguing that Charlestown was a “peaceful” rally, practicing “free speech”, and that they were “attacked” by protesters. You cannot argue with them that the fact that this rally included motherfuckers wearing Nazi armbands and practicing Nazi salutes, and that puts them beyond the pale of “free speech”. They just don’t get “March With Nazis = You’re A Nazi”.
I generally get tossed back “Whatever, Comrade” responses. Like hating ultra-right-wing fuckwits makes me Chairman Mao. That’s their worst comeback.
I mean… it doesn’t. But when you show up armed with shields, clubs and guns, and instigate it does.
And especially when you drive cars into crowds of people to kill them or chase someone down into a parking garage and beat them with said clubs.
See, I’m one of those centrist weirdos who thinks violent extremism both either the left or the right is abhorrent. There’s a point where one has to draw the line between “I don’t agree with you, but that’s your right of free speech” and “fuck no”, and common sense dictates that when you slap on the regalia of one of the most evil monsters of history, it’s “fuck no” time. I’d feel the same way if there was, say, a Pol Pot demonstration.
It is abhorrent, which is why defending it is one of our most important rights.
Think about it this way. Who determines what is not allowed? If he could Trump would make everything we’ve said in this thread a crime and have us all arrested. And most of Congress would sign off on it.
Not to bring up Ken again, but he’s right.
We free speech defenders are just as quick with hypotheticals; it’s built into our worldview. “Really? So you’d give the state the power to choose what speech is acceptable and what speech isn’t, and use its vast power to punish the difference? You’re comfortable giving it that power, even though some day that state might be controlled by an implacable enemy of everything you believe in, a tyrant who overtly relishes the power to punish people who think like you do, encouraged by supporters who hate you?” The unprincipled-tyrant-that-could-be is a staple of First Amendment rhetoric.
This is the final hypothetical come to pass: if the state asked you to give up freedoms in exchange for a dubious promise it would make you safer, would you do it? Would you convince yourself that the state would only use the power against Them, and not you?
Because we have that tyrant and he’s openly said he would stop our speech. The only thing really stopping him is the First Amendment.
One might well argue he wouldn’t have gotten elected if speech weren’t quite so free during the election.
One could argue the same about every President that has ever been elected. And all the ones that weren’t.
I’m just sayin’, I kinda think Germany’s ideals here are a little more solid than ours.
And they went through one bitch of a crucible to get there.
I disagree.
Keep in mind things you have personally said in this forum would likely be illegal in Germany.
I’d never dream of holding myself up as a paragon of behavior :)
@divedivedive hey, a few more Charlottesvilles and maybe we can get our own happy lil Nazi crucible!